price_benchmark

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a data-sufficiency behavior ('says so when under 5 comparables'), but omits anything about read-only safety, permissions, or comparability constraints. Its enumeration of return fields is largely redundant given an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the return-value and caveat details. Every clause adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, annotated-free tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and a meaningful edge-case behavior. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'ocid' parameter, which neither the schema nor the description clarifies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'ocid' parameter is never explained in the description. The phrase 'one tender's award value' only loosely implies the identifier's role; format, requiredness, and lookup semantics are left entirely to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('compare one tender's award value with similar awards') and pins the comparison scope to 'same item group and category'. This is enough to separate it from siblings like search_awards or supplier_profile, though it never explicitly names which sibling to prefer over check_red_flags, whose outlier-detection role overlaps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb ('compare one tender's award value') but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools. The only conditional guidance is a data caveat, not a routing rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.